What is the difference between what al-Hakim graded as authentic and al-Dhahabi agreed with, and what al-Hakim graded as authentic and al-Dhahabi remained silent about?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. The second question: It is known that Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) summarized al-Hakim's book al-Mustadrak, but he did not stipulate that he would point out every error al-Hakim made. Is it permissible, given this, for us to say that in every hadith al-Hakim graded as authentic and al-Dhahabi remained silent about, al-Dhahabi agreed with him, knowing that he may have remained silent in the summary but graded it weak in al-Mizan, for example?
The Shaykh : We distinguish between what he remained silent about, in which case we say "he remained silent," and what he agreed with, in which case we say "he agreed." We distinguish between the two matters.
The questioner : How do we know, I mean, whether he remained silent or whether he agreed?
The Shaykh : He leaves it blank, and sometimes we use this expression, meaning al-Hakim in the original text said "authentic chain" or said "authentic according to the condition of..."The Shaykh : ...or one of them, as is known. As for al-Dhahabi in the summary, he left it blank; he left it blank and did not say what al-Hakim said. So when he leaves it blank, we say al-Dhahabi left it blank for him or remained silent about it. If he agreed via a symbol, we say he agreed with al-Hakim in this case. But if he did not agree and only left it blank, we say he left it blank or remained silent about it.
The questioner : I mean, the fact that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him)... I mean, al-Hakim sometimes says "authentic according to the condition of..."The Shaykh : ...so al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions in the summary that he uses a symbol, like a kha or a mim, for example, a kha if he said "according to the condition of al-Bukhari," or a mim if he said "according to the condition of Muslim," or "authentic" if he said "authentic chain." Is this symbol considered agreement from him, or is it merely an abbreviation of al-Hakim's words?
The Shaykh : It is supposed to be merely an abbreviation, but since we have seen that he has criticized him in many matters, we have no choice but to say he agreed with him, unlike when he leaves it blank and does not address the agreement.
The questioner : Here, Shaykh, there is an objection from some students of knowledge who say that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) himself mentioned in al-Hakim's biography in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala that he abbreviated this book or summarized this book, which is al-Mustadrak, and said that it lacks refinement and purification. So does this statement by al-Dhahabi indicate that he did not follow up on every error al-Hakim made?
The Shaykh : This can be said, but it does not mean that if he agreed with him, as I said and we said before regarding the symbol, that he contradicted him. Because we support the previous answer: when he criticizes him in dozens, if not hundreds, of hadiths, how do we reconcile this criticism with leaving it blank and with agreement? Here there are three levels, and we must give each of these levels its due.
The questioner : I mean, some students of knowledge or some shaykhs say that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) criticized al-Hakim in whatever he happened to criticize, and especially in the hadiths where some innovators have an interest. For example, he says that al-Dhahabi's (may Allah have mercy on him) criticisms of al-Hakim in the book Fada'il al-Sahabah, meaning regarding the virtues of the People of the House, which al-Hakim had more of than in other books, were more numerous than in other books.
The Shaykh : This does not mean, first, that he certainly did not criticize him in other places. Then, what he criticized in other places has absolutely no relation to the aspect you pointed out regarding bias for a group or an individual. Often a hadith is mentioned that has no relation except to fiqh. So the theory you mentioned about some of them does not mean that he only scrutinized what relates to a specific type of hadith. This is common and very common. And what I want to draw attention to and affirm again is that it is not permissible for us to equate what we called agreement with what we called leaving it blank and with what we called explicit criticism. It is not permissible for us to equate these matters. So when, using my expression, he agreed with him, this has no value. It is not permissible for us to say this; there is a great waste in such a work performed by Imam al-Dhahabi. I know that many students of knowledge today notice what we notice of al-Dhahabi's contradiction in his summary and his contradiction in other books with his summary. We say that this phenomenon is not noticed only in Imam al-Dhahabi and between one book and another, but this is an observation we notice among many prominent scholars.
The Shaykh : We distinguish between what he remained silent about, in which case we say "he remained silent," and what he agreed with, in which case we say "he agreed." We distinguish between the two matters.
The questioner : How do we know, I mean, whether he remained silent or whether he agreed?
The Shaykh : He leaves it blank, and sometimes we use this expression, meaning al-Hakim in the original text said "authentic chain" or said "authentic according to the condition of..."The Shaykh : ...or one of them, as is known. As for al-Dhahabi in the summary, he left it blank; he left it blank and did not say what al-Hakim said. So when he leaves it blank, we say al-Dhahabi left it blank for him or remained silent about it. If he agreed via a symbol, we say he agreed with al-Hakim in this case. But if he did not agree and only left it blank, we say he left it blank or remained silent about it.
The questioner : I mean, the fact that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him)... I mean, al-Hakim sometimes says "authentic according to the condition of..."The Shaykh : ...so al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions in the summary that he uses a symbol, like a kha or a mim, for example, a kha if he said "according to the condition of al-Bukhari," or a mim if he said "according to the condition of Muslim," or "authentic" if he said "authentic chain." Is this symbol considered agreement from him, or is it merely an abbreviation of al-Hakim's words?
The Shaykh : It is supposed to be merely an abbreviation, but since we have seen that he has criticized him in many matters, we have no choice but to say he agreed with him, unlike when he leaves it blank and does not address the agreement.
The questioner : Here, Shaykh, there is an objection from some students of knowledge who say that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) himself mentioned in al-Hakim's biography in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala that he abbreviated this book or summarized this book, which is al-Mustadrak, and said that it lacks refinement and purification. So does this statement by al-Dhahabi indicate that he did not follow up on every error al-Hakim made?
The Shaykh : This can be said, but it does not mean that if he agreed with him, as I said and we said before regarding the symbol, that he contradicted him. Because we support the previous answer: when he criticizes him in dozens, if not hundreds, of hadiths, how do we reconcile this criticism with leaving it blank and with agreement? Here there are three levels, and we must give each of these levels its due.
The questioner : I mean, some students of knowledge or some shaykhs say that al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) criticized al-Hakim in whatever he happened to criticize, and especially in the hadiths where some innovators have an interest. For example, he says that al-Dhahabi's (may Allah have mercy on him) criticisms of al-Hakim in the book Fada'il al-Sahabah, meaning regarding the virtues of the People of the House, which al-Hakim had more of than in other books, were more numerous than in other books.
The Shaykh : This does not mean, first, that he certainly did not criticize him in other places. Then, what he criticized in other places has absolutely no relation to the aspect you pointed out regarding bias for a group or an individual. Often a hadith is mentioned that has no relation except to fiqh. So the theory you mentioned about some of them does not mean that he only scrutinized what relates to a specific type of hadith. This is common and very common. And what I want to draw attention to and affirm again is that it is not permissible for us to equate what we called agreement with what we called leaving it blank and with what we called explicit criticism. It is not permissible for us to equate these matters. So when, using my expression, he agreed with him, this has no value. It is not permissible for us to say this; there is a great waste in such a work performed by Imam al-Dhahabi. I know that many students of knowledge today notice what we notice of al-Dhahabi's contradiction in his summary and his contradiction in other books with his summary. We say that this phenomenon is not noticed only in Imam al-Dhahabi and between one book and another, but this is an observation we notice among many prominent scholars.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.